By Agata Peleszuk | 19/08/2010
A recent Irish cultural boycott of Israel was supported by more than 150 artists. The initiative is one of the actions aimed to culturally alienate the Jewish state and influence the Israeli government to change its policy towards Palestinians. The latest boycott from Ireland and many others point out the power of artists' political expression. Regardless of identifying it with courage, original activism or unnecessary involvement in politics, cultural boycotts of Israel are quite popular. The only question is: do they really work?
A social or political function of arts has been known for centuries. Artists are controversial by nature and many of them like spreading universal or concrete political messages to the wider public. Famous faces not only help to sell commercial products, but also to attract attention to socially important issues. The same rules apply to political agendas. Therefore it is not a surprise that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process enjoys a significant popularity among the international community. In spite of a little size of Israel, almost everybody has his own, firmly shaped opinion about the conflict. Among Israel's critics there are many artists that decided to express their opposition to the Israeli policies - individually or collectively, as a part of a bigger protest group. That is how a characteristic kind of a protest was formed. Its supporters call it a cultural boycott. The opponents, on the other hand, think of it as a cultural terrorism.
In regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, all the forms of boycotts are aimed to raise public awareness (both in Israel and worldwide), encourage other states, national institutions and organizations to pressure Israel to change its policy in the West Bank and towards Gaza Strip. The cultural protest includes withdrawing from performing in Israel and refraining from any kind of cultural ties with Israeli organizations or foreign entities that keep strong ties with the Jewish state. The latest boycott announced by the Irish artists is based on assumption that “artists who perform there are backing it [the Israeli government] whether they like it or not”. The harsh criticism of Israel is designed to be an open solidarity with Palestinians and a way of struggle for human rights.
Before Irish authors and performers their two cents worth to Israel's boycotting added Carlos Santana, Elvis Costello, Gorillaz, Klaxons and Gil Scott Heron. All of them cancelled their concerts in Israel after the Navy's raid on the aid flotilla to Gaza Strip. I hope it is possible to understand that I am not taking this decision lightly or so I may stand beneath any banner, nor is it one in which I imagine myself to possess any unique or eternal truth. It is a matter of instinct conscience –announced Costello when his two Tel Aviv performances were cancelled. The musician's decision was even more of a surprise after his interview with the Israeli daily “Yediot Achronot” where he supported the idea of performing for the Israeli audience. I know that there are organizations who think that they need to boycott Israel to pressure it. I, as opposed to them, think that culture is the only way in which humanity shares experiences and that is why I need to come and perform here – said.
The cultural boycott was initiated in the literary and academic circles as well. In 2006 a well-known writer John Berger in a letter to “The Guardian” turned to British artists to launch a cultural struggle for the Palestinian cause. It could be a factor in Israeli policy changing. Of course its effects will not be gigantic but it is a way of not staying silent. It is a very personal call. A way of encouraging the very courageous Israelis who oppose their government and an encouragement to Palestinians to somehow go on surviving – explained in one of the interviews. Pro-Palestinian accents could be heard upon a Canadian writer Margaret Atwood's acceptance of the Dan David Prize awarded by the Tel Aviv University. In spite of various appeals for refusing the award, the respected writer agreed to accept it. In response to callings for a boycott, she expressed her strong criticism against any form of artists' alienation. We don't do cultural boycotts. I would be throwing overboard the thousands of writers around the world who are in prison, censored, exiled and murdered for what they have published. (…) Artists don't have armies. What they do is nuanced, by which I mean it is about human beings, not about propaganda positions – said Atwood. The issue of boycotting Israel was also raised among moviemakers. During the last year's Toronto International Film Festival a list of 50 moviemakers signed a declaration against choosing Tel Aviv for the “City to City” project that presented movies from a selected city. The protesters alleged the festival's organizers of “whether intentionally or not” becoming “complicit in the Israeli propaganda machine”.
Atwood's conclusion touches a core sensitive issue – a certain immunity of artists against political content. From this perspective, an industrial or commercial boycotts of Israeli products should be differentiated from targeting Israeli artists or the audience. Indeed slamming the door in faces of those who can actually express humanitarian appeals is probably highly unproductive. Since the real change can only be made in the local, Israeli-Palestinian arena, the cultural boycott of one side or the other generates new obstacles to the dialogue. It is ridiculous to punish artists for the actions of governments, under any circumstances – said an American director James Cameron to “The Jerusalem Post” after his name was illegally put under the letter calling for boycotting a student film festival at the Tel Aviv University. The Israeli arts promoter Shuki Weiss, involved in organizing big stars' concerts in Israel, was harsher in slamming the very idea of cultural boycotts, calling them a form of “cultural terrorism”.
Maybe a term “terrorism” applied to the cultural sphere is a bit exaggerated, however the purpose of alienating Israeli artists and fans is not the right way to promote peace either. Musicians spread love and peace, and bring people together. That's what we do. We don't cherry-pick our conscience – said Elton John during his concert in Tel Aviv in June 2010. Following John's spirit, a declarative criticism of Israel's policies could be more productive if expressed in a creative, artistic form. Instead of turning away from Israeli fans, worldwide stars could send their message from Tel Aviv stages. Maybe it could even result in some large-scale artistic initiatives for peace process gathering artists from various countries, including Israelis and Palestinians. After all, there are so many better ways of using culture than boycotting…
